Charles, only a piggish person can live a piggish lifestyle and as you have declared that all deniers can be piggish, are yiou saying with a matter of certainty now that all of the converted couldn't possibly live a piggish lifestyle ?

Give that a moment's thought, please. Yoiu are attemptiong to say that only the people who refuse to give up the position of sceptic , defined by the OED as a person who doubts accepted theories, can be piggish. Should i assume when you went from being a doubting sceptic (as a practitioner of the scientific method, yiou must have changed over at some point), that a new halo together with a pair of gilded wings were installed on you.

Like I said, it is evangelism. it has no purpose in this discussion. There is no moral high ground to be had in science. Science has no morals, just facts.

CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today, and yet the temperature was colder at times furing that that period.

Attribution and context please.

I made an assumption that you have read the leading reports by the IPCC, the same reports used by your government, and also used by as many other governments as the IPCC can convince to use them, and upon reading at least one of those reports you will have seen data reflecting the historic changes in the levels of CO2. Thos ereports show data in graphical form which accurately supports my statment that CO2 levels on earth have been higher (over ten times higher at some points) than the current level.

Did you ever read an IPCC report Charles ?

There has never ever been a time when the earth's climate was stable. It has always been rising or falling in temperature, in level of atmospheric CO2, in levels of methane, background radiation and trying not to point at the elephant in the room too obviously, the level of solar radiation.

Ah, it just depends on how you want to define the relative term stable. This too is laughable, were this not a serious topic.

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Milankovitch_cycles

It is true that stability is a relative term. Relative terms are not normally laughable, in and of themselves.

If yiou wish, we can adopt a period of time to the resolution of 10 years for the purposes of making a measurement of stability. This makes it possible to say that at no time in earths history has the climate been stable between any time successive ten year periods. At grosser resolutions, this instability becomes increasingly more obvious.

Who laughs ?

In one report the IPCC produce (support by the CRU in East Anglia) we read the ridiculous statment that 'The sun does not affect earth's climate".

Attribution please. Did you find this buried in a so-called skeptic website on the intertubes? Congratulations! You obviously can't distinguish signal from noise, and noise is always present. Therefore you can't be trusted to interpret signals.

Attribution is extant in the first sentence. If you do not read the IPCC reports yourself it is unsurprising you have no access to their statments.

CharlesM, as mentioned in my response to ttemple, NASA has shown that accurate mesurements made from space shows beyond all reasonable doubt that the figure used by the IPCC or heat lost into space to be fallacious.

Are you a designer, CharlesM, or a reporter ? When you design something, starting with a model, do you design using assumed or presumed figures, or do you include as much real world data as possible ? If you use real world data (which I sincerely hope is true) would yoiu suggest that maybe the IPCC ought to also do the same thing and now include the new NASA produced data concerning the heat lost into space from earth and it's environment ?

They have proved unequivocally that the heat being lost from the earth and it's environment is in actuality much much greater than the figure being used in the 'normal' climate change model, produced and maintained by CRU for inclusion into the IPCC reports

IPCC papers are used to guide all world governments on the climate change future, and they are all wrong, as proved by NASA. When asked if the latest report will include NASA's recent findings they have not been very forthcoming with an answer. That speaks volumes.

if yiou are using a computer model (all predictions to date are based on model, produced by conjecture and assumption, and yoiu were given the chance to include some actual fact figures representative of accurate measurements made in the real world, wouldn't yiou include them even just to test your model's ability to reflect reality. i would

I don't know an engineer worth his salt who would say that actual measurements are not worthy of inlusion either in the model or in arguments connected with it.

CharlesM, are you aware how wrong the model and all the papers, peer-reviewed and otherwise, which have been produced on the back of the assumed figure for heat loss into space must now be considered to be flawed, because new evidence containing measured facts has come to light ? I hope you can see there is no point in contesting the use of a actual measurement in favour of all previious assumed or presumed heat loss figures.

Volt sales have been trending downward, forcing two temporary production line shutdowns due to excessive dealer inventory in the past year or so. Very recently, GM decided to "blow out" more Volts with super low cost leases and up to ~$10K ADDITIONAL incentives. Sales bumped up due to this, but I'm guessing that they are just clearing the decks before shooting the product in the head. As soon as the massive support dollars dry up - it's "fad over".

If you re-read my comments, I didn't criticise the TeslaS. I think it is the best EV yet (but is very expensive). My comment was that if THIS model can't become commercially successful, then perhaps NONE can at this time.

Regarding Edison2, frankly you don't know what you are talking about. This is NOT vaporware, and Oliver Kuttner and team are the most amazing and competent group of dedicated professionals. They won the $5M Automotive X-prize, and not only won - but basically won every single stage (emergency handling, braking, skid-pad G's, etc). The main designers on their team have designed race cars for many years, winning the Lemans endurance race several times. Their body designer is the chief aerodynamicist of Northrup Grumnman. The aero drag is the lowest of any 4-seater car ever measured by GM's wind tunnel and the EPA's official coastdown testing. etc.

Before and during the X-prize competition I conversed with Oliver via email many times, and believe me - he is the real deal. I hope they are successful, and if you don't like the way the car looks - don't buy one!

The car that your are trying to remember was Aptera. They also had an ultra-streamliner car (airplane-like). However, their implementation was much less sophisticated than Edison2, was a 3-wheeler and they did not do very well in the competition and are now out of business.

Take a deep breath and put your zealot badge back in your pocket. There's no reason to wear it here...we are technical people talking about technology and opinions.

The LEAF, OTOH, is overpriced right now because it's very low volume even with good sales, built in Japan with the high markup of the Yen conversion like Infinitis which can tolerate that, and not like high volume Versas which are made in Mexico. That's expected to change when the Tennessee factory is completed. The Passat price dropped almost $10k when VW moved production from Germany to Tennessee.

Fisker's problems have little if anything to do with it being battery powered. It's a brand new startup car corporation, without the multi-billions of needed dollars or the expereince of an established auto maker. And some would say it's poorly designed, totally and merely coincidental with it having a battery.

Tesla is also a brand new startup car corporation, also without the multi-billions of needed dollars or the expereince of an established auto maker. Yet they have launched an amazing, some would say game-changing product. Their demand strongly outstrips supply. How is that a failure and how does this fit in to the article we are supposedly commenting on? Their business model, whether it succeeds or fails, has many more components than to build and sell a "battery car." If Tesla is failing, the world needs more of these kinds of "failures."

The Edison 2 is vaporware and a total non-starter. The airplane look is a total joke that no real car company would dare build. I can't even remember the name of the EV prototype that looked like that and never got off the ground a couple years ago. Surely you jest.

You won't have long to wait before gasoiine prices will rebalance the market, no matter how much we drill, drill, drill or whether or not Rolls and Royce get elected.

You're inundating me with BS, fixitsan. First you need to reread my statement before you misconstrue:

Obviously, if you need 100% proof without uncertainty, then you'll stay in denial, convenient for a piggish lifestyle and to not being part of the solution.

Where did I call you piggish? Maybe your inability to comprehend explains a lot of your problem with GW too.

CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today, and yet the temperature was colder at times furing that that period.

Attribution and context please.

There has never ever been a time when the earth's climate was stable. It has always been rising or falling in temperature, in level of atmospheric CO2, in levels of methane, background radiation and trying not to point at the elephant in the room too obviously, the level of solar radiation.

Ah, it just depends on how you want to define the relative term stable. This too is laughable, were this not a serious topic.

In one report the IPCC produce (support by the CRU in East Anglia) we read the ridiculous statment that 'The sun does not affect earth's climate".

Attribution please. Did you find this buried in a so-called skeptic website on the intertubes? Congratulations! You obviously can't distinguish signal from noise, and noise is always present. Therefore you can't be trusted to interpret signals.

I won't cave to the AGW crowd either. I don't care how many people declare AGW as "fact", it is not. It is a theory that the AGW crowd attempts to elevate to fact status through opinion polls, not through objective scientific process.

For me, a theory is not a fact just because a large group of people claim it to be so. Facts and objectivity really don't matter to these people. When you press them with arguments that don't fit with their opinion, they react by name calling.

It's beginning to look like Tesla may be one of the "last men standing" in the EV arena, in no small part credited to Elon Musk's phenomenal skills and vision. I really think the Tesla S model is by far the most amazing consumer EV ever designed, although the price still relegates it to high-end customers.

In my first post I pointed out that one possible way to encourage a greater uptake of EV's, and so causing cost reductions via the economies of scale was to seek greater involvement from large companies, car hire companies and carpark owners in particular.

After adding a bit of humour about being labelled 'a denier' I was surprised that there has been no comment on my point but plenty made of me as a person, even to the poinbt of calling me piggish. Am I, and my point of view, so threatening that a grown man resorts to personal insults ? Deary me !

CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today, and yet the temperature was colder at times furing that that period.

There has never ever been a time when the earth's climate was stable. It has always been rising or falling in temperature, in level of atmospheric CO2, in levels of methane, background radiation and trying not to point at the elephant in the room too obviously, the level of solar radiation.

In one report the IPCC produce (support by the CRU in East Anglia) we read the ridiculous statment that 'The sun does not affect earth's climate".

When yiou read something like that yoiu can be forgiving for being shocked into breathlessness by the audacity of their selective ignorance.

If No Sun = No Climate and Some Sun = Some Climate, then clearly, the sun affects our climate. but the 'experts' say no.

I'm sorry we've become sidetracked in to the unsettled science of AGW, I only wanted to suggest a simple way we might be able to see more EV's on the road for less cost (IE battery cost).

I think it is possible to be both a skeptic and also have an open mind...in fact I think this is the optimum mindset of a technical person. I've followed the AGW issue for years...studied many details - and yet I must say that there is STILL room for doubt on both sides. I'm not dragging my feet - I'm honestly and logically vetting the arguments of both sides. FYI: here are some of my findings, and a few personal opinions (always open to revision based on new info):

1. It is certain that temperatures have been rising, but is today's temp higher than ever before? The answer is clearly NO - there is evidence of much higher (and much lower) temperatures in earth's history...so why is today's rise cause for mortal concern, and did mankind CAUSE it?

2. No doubt, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and the burning of fossil fuels contributes a lot of CO2. HOWEVER, nearly every article that decries the terrible effects of manmade greenhouse gasses fails to even mention the natural greenhouse gas that DWARFS all others. Any guesses? It's water vapor. Also, natural vegetation decay and even cows contribute a significant amount of greenhouse gas (methane). I'm just saying - it is crazy complicated and causality has NOT been proven...only inferred.

3. Whether AGW has hit a critical point or not - may be a moot point. We are not that far away from "peak oil" (some people believe we are already there) or even near depletion of most oil reserves ...so the burn rate will probably be slowing down whether we like it or not within the next ~50-100 years. So maybe it is <almost> a moot point to worry about AGW...but of course this issue makes converting to renewable energy sources MORE important than ever! This urgency takes on an even greater weight when you realize that almost 100% of modern farming's fertilizers (all ammonia based) are synthesized from natural gas...so our addiction to fossil fuels not only is an energy issue, but a food issue.

4. What role do EV's have in converting to renewable energy sources, getting off of fossil fuels, and reducing CO2? This was an area that surprised me when I studied deeper, as I was always 100% for promotion of EV's, and still like the technology aspect of them. However, an EV is only as clean as the power grid that charges it, and the fuel cost only as inexpensive as electric generation.

5. EV's do NOT directly create any renewable energy benefits - they only can leverage renewable deployment as it is rolled-out to the power grid. Therefore, I believe that converting the grid to renewable sources should be our highest priority...which will take a long time, given the scale of the grid and the pace of power plant replacement (it will take 50-100 years). Of course, regionally there are very different pictures: If I live in Idaho, Washington, Oregon - my power is 95% hydro and EV's are wonderful. If I live in many other states, my power is primarily COAL, or Natural Gas. The national average power grid is ~68% fossil fuels (Coal + NG), and not changing very fast. See: https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/energy/energy_archive/energy_flow_2010/LLNLUSEnergy2010.png

6. By the way - if I live in Hawaii, my power is 87% petroleum oil based - so why in the world would I buy an EV there until they convert to more renewables? An EV doesn't even change the fuel from oil to coal+NG. I should note that the misguided federal (and state) tax credits for EV's exists in Hawaii too. This money would be better spent on developing renewable sources and better battery technology - not supporting consumer products that aren't really that beneficial with the existing infastructure.

7. Although EV's are very efficient once the electricity is in the battery - that is not the issue. The generation of that electricity from fossil fuels is (on average) NO MORE EFFICIENT than today's most efficient cars...actually less! This seems hard to believe - but is 100% true. The average COAL or OIL power plant is 33% thermally efficient. The Prius engine is 38%. However, the new Combined Cycle natural gas plants (not many deployed yet) can be up to 60% efficient - so that is definitely a step in the right direction...but it is still running on fossil fuel.

8. Once better batteries can be developed and the grid coverted to renewable sources - EV's make perfect sense. However, they are not the only possible "green" path forward. Solar-syntheized fuels may allow cars to have all the convenience of today, yet still be internal combustion driven. In fact, if ammonia (or hydrogen) were that fuel - the combustion products can be carbon-free as well. Even a hydrocarbon based fuel could be "carbon-neutral".

9. The best installations of wind power have now acheived near cost parity to conventional power plants...but not really the newest natural gas combined cycle type. This, plus cheaper natural gas from fracking will keep cost pressures on renewable sources for some time to come. Solar power, sadly, is still not that close yet. However, Wind, Solar, geothermal and if a miracle happens - fusion are really the only long-term renewable (or non-CO2 generating) power sources. Developing and deploying these should be our top priority, in my opinion, and EV's IMO are mainly a distraction in this regard for most regions...especially for mainstream cars.

10. Wind and Solar power can not be installed on the grid over approx. 25% total content without requiring massive grid-scale energy storage. Therefore, this is a priority that emerges nearly as high as deploying renewable sources. There are those that believe the batteries in a zillion EV's could be this storage. I think this might be a partial answer...but the problems and weaknesses of this idea run deep. It would be much better and more universal to deploy the energy storage at the power plants.

11. An interim energy solution that is worthy of consideration is deployment of new generations of nuclear reactors that actually run on NUCLEAR WASTE. see: http://www.ga.com/nuclear-energy/energy-multiplier-module This could help solve our nearly intractible issue with existing nuclear waste and yet contribute reliable power with safer, proven technology.

So...there is a brain-dump of a lot of important factoids that have taken me years to learn amid the din of zealots who claim to know all the answers. Things are not aways what they seem or what you hear on the news.

Industrial workplaces are governed by OSHA rules, but this isn’t to say that rules are always followed. While injuries happen on production floors for a variety of reasons, of the top 10 OSHA rules that are most often ignored in industrial settings, two directly involve machine design: lockout/tagout procedures (LO/TO) and machine guarding.

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.